UnderGround Forums
 

NatureGround >> The Myths of Science


4/30/07 9:31 PM
Ignore | Quote | Vote Down | Vote Up
Rastus
Send Private Message Add Comment To Profile

Edited: 30-Apr-07
Member Since: 01/01/2001
Posts: 28413
From the link above: Bohm conceives of consciousness as more than information and the brain; rather it is information that enters into consciousness. For Bohm consciousness "involves awareness, attention, perception, acts of understanding, and perhaps yet more." Further, Bohm parallels the activity of consciousness with that of the Implicate Order in general.
4/30/07 9:35 PM
Ignore | Quote | Vote Down | Vote Up
Jonwell
6 The total sum of your votes up and votes down Send Private Message Add Comment To Profile

Edited: 30-Apr-07
Member Since: 01/01/2001
Posts: 47177
Ever heard of Susan Blackmore, Rastus?
4/30/07 9:38 PM
Ignore | Quote | Vote Down | Vote Up
Rastus
Send Private Message Add Comment To Profile

Edited: 30-Apr-07
Member Since: 01/01/2001
Posts: 28416
No, but I'd like to learn about her. I just did a search on her. Apparently, she's a specialist in Memetics, units of cultural information. Yes?
4/30/07 9:40 PM
Ignore | Quote | Vote Down | Vote Up
Jonwell
6 The total sum of your votes up and votes down Send Private Message Add Comment To Profile

Edited: 30-Apr-07
Member Since: 01/01/2001
Posts: 47178
Yes. Former psi researcher, got out of it when she learned how hollow it was. Lots of interesting experience to draw upon. She has a good interview on the Point of Inquiry podcast.
4/30/07 9:46 PM
Ignore | Quote | Vote Down | Vote Up
Rastus
Send Private Message Add Comment To Profile

Edited: 30-Apr-07
Member Since: 01/01/2001
Posts: 28417
Superfrog: "Neither is reality" what do you mean? Your evidence? Interesting way to ask what I mean. Well, for one, as I wrote before, we don't know what matter is, what energy is, what space is. We create ideas that serve as analogies, and see how well the universe corresponds with these analogies. We treated, for instance, space as if it were composed of euclidean points. From that, we applied concepts of geometry to make predictions, some of which corresponded to expectations. Some did not. Einstein then described points as "events" in General relativity, and conceived space as having non-zero energy. That's the basis of what he calls his "stress energy tensor" - a four dimensional matrix that governs cosmological activity. In General Relativity, there is no fixed geometry. The presence and quantity of matter determine space's geometry. Both of these models are ideas in our noggins...and we then see to what extent the universe corresponds with that reality. QM has a totally different approach. The two get entangled with the realization of the Black Hole - where the two models meet. Enter into the conundrums of modern physics.
4/30/07 9:49 PM
Ignore | Quote | Vote Down | Vote Up
Jonwell
6 The total sum of your votes up and votes down Send Private Message Add Comment To Profile

Edited: 30-Apr-07
Member Since: 01/01/2001
Posts: 47179
My physics professor described nature as being the ultimate calculator- she shows us the real answer, all we can do is try to get as close as we can to it.
4/30/07 9:55 PM
Ignore | Quote | Vote Down | Vote Up
UncleGruntly
Send Private Message Add Comment To Profile

Edited: 30-Apr-07
Member Since: 12/12/2005
Posts: 1291
science is the search for the truth and, the reasons. The whys and the hows. The expansion of our understanding. it's why we know, what causes earth quakes, why volanos erupt etc. instead of thinking "ooh, the volcano erupted.... god is angry"
4/30/07 10:44 PM
Ignore | Quote | Vote Down | Vote Up
UncleGruntly
Send Private Message Add Comment To Profile

Edited: 30-Apr-07
Member Since: 12/12/2005
Posts: 1297
this is all just another piss weak attempt at the on going religious rhetoric..... religion is prooved to be so far from reality that, instead of coming up with endless inane arguments that are pro-religion that, with in minutes get disprooved... they attack science... as if this argument holds any weight.... it's like a snot nosed kid saying "I know you are but, what am I?" or "takes one to know one" If people who believe in science, were so retardedly stupid to give this argument any weight, they would probably already be religious.
4/30/07 11:10 PM
Ignore | Quote | Vote Down | Vote Up
UncleGruntly
Send Private Message Add Comment To Profile

Edited: 30-Apr-07
Member Since: 12/12/2005
Posts: 1300
I am extremely anti-religious... religion has caused more separation, wars, death and, crime than anything else in creation.. it is a fact that more people have been excecuted because of their religious beliefs than have died in every war in history.... including the religious wars.... so forgive me if I don't subscribe to being a part of the criminal, tax evading, murderous, hate breeding, war causing institution that has reaked destruction, genocide and, murder on the entire world for thousands and, thousands of years. the christians are responsible for eradicating entire cultures and, civilisations in the name of money greed and, power. THE ULTIMATE EVIL!
4/30/07 11:45 PM
Ignore | Quote | Vote Down | Vote Up
UncleGruntly
Send Private Message Add Comment To Profile

Edited: 30-Apr-07
Member Since: 12/12/2005
Posts: 1306
death side... third leg.. they are great constructive arguments that are full of wisdom and, insight.... thanks for 0 what embarrasses me is that civilization is still full of brainwashed idiots too blind to see.
4/30/07 11:52 PM
Ignore | Quote | Vote Down | Vote Up
UncleGruntly
Send Private Message Add Comment To Profile

Edited: 30-Apr-07
Member Since: 12/12/2005
Posts: 1307
where I come from 1 in about every 200 people may believe in some sort of god... but not fanatically. most of them are considered weirdos by the general population. to me, the fact that 60% of US believes in religion (of which none can agree) is insanity. a whole nation of which 60% are weirdos... now that's embarrassing.
5/1/07 12:02 AM
Ignore | Quote | Vote Down | Vote Up
UncleGruntly
Send Private Message Add Comment To Profile

Edited: 01-May-07
Member Since: 12/12/2005
Posts: 1308
deathside, please explain where I have ignored facts.
5/1/07 1:53 AM
Ignore | Quote | Vote Down | Vote Up
Rastus
Send Private Message Add Comment To Profile

Edited: 01-May-07
Member Since: 01/01/2001
Posts: 28418
Science is by no means a religion. The assertion that it is is patently false. What I'm suggesting is that the cock-suredness of the scientist is exceedingly myopic. It's still a dark, mysterious universe out there, don't kid yourself.
5/1/07 2:01 AM
Ignore | Quote | Vote Down | Vote Up
Rastus
Send Private Message Add Comment To Profile

Edited: 01-May-07
Member Since: 01/01/2001
Posts: 28419
About "faith", there's the Buddhist faith and the Christian faith. The Christian faith is to shield yourself from the information in the world contrary to your belief...and hold onto that idea with all your might...and you'll be rewarded in the afterlife. The Buddhist faith (in the pure form, not the degraded forms existing today) is not to trust authority, but verify from your own experience for a proposition's validity. That's more akin to the scientist's faith. I have faith that gravity will be at work tomorrow because to entertain the contrary would require me to live in a fantasy land. Same with all my "faiths", such as my car starting tomorrow. Eventually, I know it won't, but I don't have a good reason to believe that tomorrow it won't. The scientist shouldn't have "faith" in anything, but should form models that best fit the data, holding no worshipful obedience to anything. If the data should demand reformulating the rules of science (and it does happen, such as the original observations of the energy output of quasars), then so be it...but not until that extreme situation occurs.
5/1/07 11:32 AM
Ignore | Quote | Vote Down | Vote Up
Fraser
46 The total sum of your votes up and votes down Send Private Message Add Comment To Profile

Edited: 01-May-07
Member Since: 01/01/2001
Posts: 42536
" deathside is correct. We only want to weed out the faiths and beliefs that we find distasteful."

Even as a joke, this implies to me that

1) you consider religion and science equivalent in terms of how they involve faith

2) you think that there is a prominent movement to "weed out" Christianity

Are either of these things true?
5/1/07 12:02 PM
Ignore | Quote | Vote Down | Vote Up
Fraser
46 The total sum of your votes up and votes down Send Private Message Add Comment To Profile

Edited: 01-May-07
Member Since: 01/01/2001
Posts: 42540
You don't see a difference between having faith in an empirically-testable system, and having faith in a faith-based system?
5/1/07 12:14 PM
Ignore | Quote | Vote Down | Vote Up
Alabama Man
2 The total sum of your votes up and votes down Send Private Message Add Comment To Profile

Edited: 01-May-07
Member Since: 05/04/2006
Posts: 318
rastus} i came to the same conclusion after my masters in physics
5/1/07 12:22 PM
Ignore | Quote | Vote Down | Vote Up
eviladam
30 The total sum of your votes up and votes down Send Private Message Add Comment To Profile

Edited: 01-May-07
Member Since: 01/01/2001
Posts: 46778
What I'm suggesting is that the cock-suredness of the scientist is exceedingly myopic. It's still a dark, mysterious universe out there, don't kid yourself. i think that most legitimate scientists would agree that what we don't know far exceeds what we do know. what we do know is more than any person could ever hope to learn in their lifetime, and unless you're going to spend your life conducting experiments to prove every piece of scientific knowledge to yourself there is a certain degree of faith in accepting that these principles have been thoroughly researched by guys who are pretty smart. anyone who doesn't agree with a certain scientific principle is free to go ahead and try to prove it wrong.
5/1/07 12:33 PM
Ignore | Quote | Vote Down | Vote Up
jbc
Send Private Message Add Comment To Profile

Edited: 01-May-07
Member Since: 01/01/2001
Posts: 212
I'm not sure that it's necessary to adopt any sort of faith or mythology to carry out experimental science. Hell, in cutting edge synthetic chemistry, most reactions will fail the first time you try them... it's finding out WHY they failed which allows you to figure out how to make them work. Also remember that mathmatics is only a man-made emperical system by which we're able to quantify (or estimate) what surrounds us. It's a tool - simple as that. Theoretical science is exactly that - an attempt to rationalize what's at the limits of our current understanding. While many theories eventually prove to be incorrect, it shouldn't limit the consideration of new or different theories... in the end, that's how we grow to understand our world. I do agree that there's still a lot to learn. That should not, however, stop us from trying. And trying, in my opinion does not require faith.
5/1/07 12:35 PM
Ignore | Quote | Vote Down | Vote Up
Tom Cruise
Send Private Message Add Comment To Profile

Edited: 01-May-07
Member Since: 05/09/2003
Posts: 7622

The more educated you become, usually the more "why" questions about the world and universe you are able to answer.

For many people, though, "God" is good enough. No reason to get complicated.

5/1/07 12:41 PM
Ignore | Quote | Vote Down | Vote Up
Rastus
Send Private Message Add Comment To Profile

Edited: 01-May-07 12:45 PM
Member Since: 01/01/2001
Posts: 28426
Alabama Man, I dropped out of the theoretical physics scene because of what I perceived to be the completely [fantalistic] way reality was being described. The end of the road in what's considered the "Standard Model" is gauge theory. In that mythology, the players are not Isis and Horus and Nephthys. There are particles that transmit forces that have to obey symmetry laws. They're Gluons for the strong force, photons for the electromagnetic force and ... neutrinos for the weak force? I forget, but anyways, even though the standard model (QCD, Gauge Theory, etc...) are successful in experimental verification, my intuition felt deadened...and I can't go further than that. I no longer felt that i was dealing with reality. So, as mentioned above, Isis and Horus and Osirus and Nephthys were replaced with these other hypothetical entities with their attributes - gluons, photons, neutrinos, gauge bosons, pi mesons, and the rest of 'em. String Theory was the straw that broke this camel's back. It will go down as a classic unfalsifiable mirage in physics that paralyzed a whole branch of science - a mythology that crossed the line between science and religious faith.
5/1/07 12:52 PM
Ignore | Quote | Vote Down | Vote Up
Rastus
Send Private Message Add Comment To Profile

Edited: 01-May-07
Member Since: 01/01/2001
Posts: 28428
Thirdleg raises a good point. The average person does have to take what scientists say on faith. That faith, however, is a more reasonable faith than assuming claims of the supernatural are true from the 'church authorities'. Theoretical Physics - right now, this very moment - is mired down in the morass of string theory because of an exclusivity born of a theocratic faith in authority figures. People talk about this stuff as if it were reality, just because a group of scientists say it is. In fairness, the burning edge of science usually has hotly varying models of explanation. That competition of ideas is healthy. What inevitably happens, however, is people run with these cutting edge ideas, many of which will line the garbage bin of history in a few decades, and declare them to be reality. New agers are constantly taking these models of QM and making fanciful claims about reality because of them.
5/1/07 1:18 PM
Ignore | Quote | Vote Down | Vote Up
Rastus
Send Private Message Add Comment To Profile

Edited: 01-May-07
Member Since: 01/01/2001
Posts: 28430
jbc, "I'm not sure that it's necessary to adopt any sort of faith or mythology to carry out experimental science." Of course it is! You believe in things we call "atoms" and 'electrons', don't you? "Hell, in cutting edge synthetic chemistry, most reactions will fail the first time you try them... it's finding out WHY they failed which allows you to figure out how to make them work." Creating a different model to explain the situation...I'm calling the "model" a "mythology", just an impersonal one. "Also remember that mathmatics is only a man-made emperical system by which we're able to quantify (or estimate) what surrounds us. It's a tool - simple as that." And that certain principles - such as continuity - are respected by the universe. That creates a framework to justify using mathematics in it. "Theoretical science is exactly that - an attempt to rationalize what's at the limits of our current understanding. While many theories eventually prove to be incorrect, it shouldn't limit the consideration of new or different theories... in the end, that's how we grow to understand our world." Well said, and I agree with that. "I do agree that there's still a lot to learn. That should not, however, stop us from trying. And trying, in my opinion does not require faith." It does, but it's not religious faith. It's more like a confidence based on experience. Language fails us in trying to make the distinction clear.
5/1/07 2:00 PM
Ignore | Quote | Vote Down | Vote Up
jbc
Send Private Message Add Comment To Profile

Edited: 01-May-07
Member Since: 01/01/2001
Posts: 216
Rastus: We might be close to saying the same thing, with the differences being language-based semantics and definitions. To me, an experience-based expectation (like the good example of your car starting tomorrow stated above) is not 'faith'. That's the same mindset with which a significant amount of controlled experimental science is conducted. A wholesale extension of existing theories or expectations to incorporate a field which we do not yet have the capacity to understand (or experiment with) is something different. If you want to call that 'faith', then that's fine with me. The delineation may be personal and arbitrary. If you want to consider the acceptance of things, which in my opinion can be 'proven' to exist like atoms, as faith, then perhaps we differ on that count. JBC
5/1/07 2:02 PM
Ignore | Quote | Vote Down | Vote Up
New World Samurai
Send Private Message Add Comment To Profile

Edited: 01-May-07
Member Since: 01/01/2001
Posts: 6605
"neutrinos for the weak force" W & Z bosons. "my intuition felt deadened" Intuition is a result of habit. Practice.

Reply Post

You must log in to post a reply. Click here to login.